5 ms·
When I cycled 25 miles a day, Monday to Friday, I could eat /anything/ in huge quantities without a problem. It makes sense, but not when you add up the calorie
by mootothemax 16y ago
When I cycled 25 miles a day, Monday to Friday, I could eat /anything/ in huge quantities without a problem. It makes sense, but not when you add up the calories; I was putting in way more than the most optimistic calculators said I was spending.
Then I moved closer to work, and had a total of maybe 20 minutes on my bike every day - but this being a cheaper bike I could leave it locked up outside (with a decent lock, natch) so it was my primary form of transport for everything - going to the shops, commuting to work or meeting friends out and about in town. I was still eating whatever I wanted albeit in slightly smaller portions without putting on a pound.
Whilst it's interesting and valuable science to discover quite what on earth goes on when we eat things, if your biggest concern is not putting on weight, why not do exercise that makes you sweat for 20 or 30 minutes 5 days a week? Seems much easier to me - and satisfying because you don't have to deny yourself anything!
- aantix 16y agoYou're giving exercise way too much credit. Even the most rigorous regiment (which most couldn't even do) can maybe burn a 1,000 calories an hour. But considering how it easy it is to ingest 1,000 calories, it's easier to make changes at the dietary level than to correct excess calories by burning them off.
- mootothemax 16y agoRather, I'm doubting that our understanding of calories and how they're burned off/turned into fat is wrong. I'm proof, as is anyone else who does 30 mins sweaty exercise a day. Otherwise, given the amount of Big Macs inbetween meals, the maths doesn't add up.
- nova 16y agowhy not do exercise that makes you sweat for 20 or 30 minutes 5 days a week? Mainly because getting fat is not the only thing that happens to us when we eat thing we didn't evolve to eat.